Comments
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.




Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!





February 2nd, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Numbers like Results Per Active User (and ARPU and ARPPU) have always been rather useless. McDonalds knows about it’s heavy users and Zynga especially knows about them ( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspending-whales-07072011.html ). They are called whales because they bring a big amount of money compared to the minnows. While we may see $5.34 of 2011 revenue per active user, that is really just total/active. Total user rate, total churn rate, total growth rate is fine and all, but I would rather see stratified data. Even, two or three groups would be 10x more helpful.
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Google makes about $200 per user per year. Except it’s not users who directly pay to search but the FIRE and big pharma industries who pay big bucks for the AdWords / AdSense clickthroughs.
How much are pizza chains willing to fork over to Facebook to access their core college crowd?
February 3rd, 2012 at 12:53 am
The size of the IPO seems to be the double size of Srilanka’s economy ..don’t know why the IT company so hyped again as if the dot com bubble is in formation http://sandyyadav.com/